Policy-Discussion

[Ian G <iang AT cacert.org>]

On 22/03/2010 03:14, Nathan Edward Tuggy wrote:

> "Once started, always complete the process (except in cases where life
> or property is in immediate danger)." (this is just a strawman, but
> captures most of what I'm thinking of).


Having debated this, I think some consensus has emerged, and I think 
this is the consensus position, above.  The text of course could vary.

Barry makes a spirited claim against advice to complete the assurance. 
I think his case is best covered by a separate caveat that the Assurer 
has to see this as a process, not a life commitment and duty to Queen & 
Country.

Perhaps something like this:

 * always try to complete the assurance

 * valid reasons for breaking off the assurance mid-stream might include
     - illness or intoxication leading to lack of judgement,
     - threats to personal safety due to environment,
     - demands or threats made by the member, etc.

 * the point of completing the assurance is that only a completed 
assurance gives us evidence -- of both positive and negative results.

 * recall the Assurance Policy's rule that "points means confidence":

     + full confidence means full points
     + lesser confidence means less points
     + zero confidence means zero points
     + negative confidence => file a dispute


I see this is a detailed issue that is really for the Handbook.  So, the 
sense of consensus here is more of the consensus of a group of 
experienced people, and this is not (IMO) a policy group decision. 
Assurance Policy is already written, and it kicks this detail across to 
the Assurance Handbook.  Hence, it is over to the Assurance Team, who 
may very well choose to ignore it all :)

iang

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature